User talk:PaulGS

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Felix II
I have apologized on two Wikipedia pages for an error I made; but I wonder if I must, in a sense, withdraw one of my apologies. Perhaps you can help me avoid having to apologize for an apology! I undoubtedly did make two mistakes. One was to suppose wrongly that the reference at the foot of the General Roman Calendar as in 1954 page was to that calendar, when it was instead a reference to the 1962 calendar. The other was to miss the word "papae" in my copy of the reproduction of the original Tridentine Missal. The change I made as a result of the latter mistake was certainly wrong, and I have undone it (see Tridentine Calendar). But I now wonder whether the change I made on account of the first mistake was instead correct. I have a copy of the Missale Romanum published in 1952 (with Pius XII's revised Holy Week texts included). For 29 July it gives "S. Marthae Virg. Semiduplex. Com. Ss. Felicis, Simplicii, Faustini et Beatricis Mm." You will note that it does not call Felix a pope. (The original Tridentine Missal has "Marthae virg. semid. & comm. ss. Felicis papae, Simplicii, Faustini & Beatricis mart.")

Do you have a Missale Romanum of the early 1950s that has, instead of what is in my 1952 missal, the words "S. Marthae Virg. Semiduplex. Com. Ss. Felicis II Papae, Simplicii ..."? This is what the Wikipedia page on the 1954 calendar says (in English). Lima (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a Missal (mine is from the 1930s), although I do have several Breviaries, including one from 1956 (still with Semidoubles and Octaves, but with the Holy Week changes), and "Ss. Felicis II Papæ", etc. is listed. The "Roman Breviary in English", printed in 1951, also lists St. Felix as a pope. A 1952 breviary (but without the Holy Week changes) also lists him as a pope. PaulGS (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

breviary
Moving that 'alternate use' was a good move--in the introduction to the article it's meaningful, in the context where I found it it was not. Thanks.Drmies (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- TRTX T / C 03:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Burglary
Thank you for cutting out the legalese. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the information it had there was wrong. PaulGS (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Just noticing that a lot of your edits do not use edit summaries. Those are very helpful for other editors to know what you were doing and, especially, why. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Liturgical year
Hi, [|This edit] cites no sources, making it impossible to work out what "previously" refers to: previous to the 1962 revisions maybe? Sparafucil (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Winter olympics
Please be careful when reverting vandalism. You just undid some good edits that came after the vandalism. Abc30 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you just restored them. Sorry and thanks. Abc30 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Woman with seven sons
I notice you've put a accuracy dispute tag on the article. Was it for the whole article, or just for the section? If it's about the Catholic feasts, I copied that from the Maccabees article, so I'm not as sure about that (though there are references). Anyway, please put your reasons on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag after some further checking. The Martyrology for August 1 refers to the woman and her sons; the ninth Lesson and the Collect for the Machabees do not specifically mention them, but since the Martyrology does, that's good enough for me. PaulGS (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Decemberists
Hi there, you recently brought The Decemberists to AfD. If I understand correctly, what you would like is for the article to live at the title "The Decemberists" and not "The Decemberists (band)". What you are proposing is a move and you should bring it up on the article talk page. I see that you've done that, but I encourage you to continue with that there. I'm going to close the AfD you opened, since you don't seem to be asking for anything to be deleted. --Danger (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Love Symbol Album and File:Prince logo.svg
I have reverted your restoration of this symbol to that article. Using a non-free image as a 12px icon is not supported by WP:NFCC, particularly #8 significance, and it fails #1 as being replaceable by text. The cover of the album, which exists on the article, adequately conveys what the love symbol is, making File:Prince logo.svg redundant in any case. Lastly, you placed the image into the article 4 times. #10c requires a separate, specific rationale for each use, meaning you would have to add 4 rationales to use it 4 times, even on the same article. Please do not restore this file to that page again. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court addition
Hello. Your recent addition to the Supreme Court page seems a bit malformed, and has a dangling clause ("in which...") I'm reverting it for now as I'm not clear what it was supposed to say, but if you could go back and write it out correctly, I'm sure the addition will be welcomed. Magidin (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Time in Indiana
Hi Paul, in regard to the Time in Indiana article, why are you reverting a change that you have described as 'acceptable'? PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since either is acceptable, there's no need to change it, for the same reasons we have WP:ENGVAR PaulGS (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK
Hi, I noticed this. We don't link to well-known geographical entities or languages. --John (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psalm 51, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divine Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletions
Please stop deleting RS-supported material. Claiming it is POV -- when that is non-sensical. And claiming that it is too detailed -- the RSs cover it, and I trust their view as to what is worth covering more than any editor's personal opinion. Please take this as a warning -- the repeated deletions of RS material are becoming disruptive. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords
Your edit has been reverted on multiple occasions by a number of different editors, so rather than try to start an edit war, read WP:BRD and open a talk page discussion. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Super luigi bros. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Super luigi bros.. Since you had some involvement with the Super luigi bros. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Square notes


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Square notes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. red dogsix (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Andrew bessette" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Andrew bessette. Since you had some involvement with the Andrew bessette redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Little house of loreto" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Little house of loreto. Since you had some involvement with the Little house of loreto redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 22:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of General Roman Calendar of 1954


The article General Roman Calendar of 1954 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: '''There are no specific edition of the General Roman Calendar published in 1954, even according to the article. WP:NOTABILITY is clearly lacking. Was the goal of the page to have an article about the General Roman Calendar as it was between Pius X's 1911 reforms and Pius XII's 1955 reforms? I have no idea.'''

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Veverve (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Your recent editing history at General Roman Calendar of 1954 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.You may want to review WP:V, WP:ONUS and WP:OWN. Kleuske (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)